If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

"Fighting for your Country" is old fashioned. One benefit of globalisation has been the steady growth of understanding that war is fought for the benefits of the ruling classes and it is everybody else who shoulders the burden of suffering on their behalf.

Originally Posted by Paul Mason

It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

Now this is already true to an extent for NATO, but smaller countries will undoubtedly have smaller manpower and will have to take a lesser role in military matters compared to France or the UK.
This is ignoring the idea of federalisation of the EU which will never happen anyway but I digress. Smaller nations like Portugal and Slovenia are far less likely to have influence in an EU Army, they
will lack experience and the necessary equipment and unlike NATO more political concerns will interfere in the process like the relationship between the Greek economy and the EU at large.

The difference between the EU Army and NATO is that the manpower for NATO can overcome the shortcoming of manpower that the EU Army will face. Political tensions between member states of the EU are less existent
in NATO mainly because the Americans run the show and have no tensions with Greece regarding their economy for instance. Smaller nations are less willing to give acquiescence to certain military matters if they are treated less fairly.
Some nations will effectively be responsible for other nations security and an EU Army is unlikely to have the will to go off to another part of the world to defend interests there. Can it even protect the territories of EU countries which
are not a part of the EU Zone?

In regards to the get anywhere part of the argument, it is likely that any military action will have to gain traction with ALL 27 members and since some members have a pacifist attitude such as Germany, I see total agreement as being
near impossible. The EU Army will lack leadership and political will to use it, it will twiddle its fingers in the barracks and become a toothless organisation with less manpower than NATO while competing with NATO for manpower.
Without American nukes, the Turkish army and the common cause of NATO which transcends political problems it is on the road to a hiding.

Now this is already true to an extent for NATO, but smaller countries will undoubtedly have smaller manpower and will have to take a lesser role in military matters compared to France or the UK.
This is ignoring the idea of federalisation of the EU which will never happen anyway but I digress. Smaller nations like Portugal and Slovenia are far less likely to have influence in an EU Army, they
will lack experience and the necessary equipment and unlike NATO more political concerns will interfere in the process like the relationship between the Greek economy and the EU at large.

The difference between the EU Army and NATO is that the manpower for NATO can overcome the shortcoming of manpower that the EU Army will face. Political tensions between member states of the EU are less existent
in NATO mainly because the Americans run the show and have no tensions with Greece regarding their economy for instance. Smaller nations are less willing to give acquiescence to certain military matters if they are treated less fairly.
Some nations will effectively be responsible for other nations security and an EU Army is unlikely to have the will to go off to another part of the world to defend interests there. Can it even protect the territories of EU countries which
are not a part of the EU Zone?

In regards to the get anywhere part of the argument, it is likely that any military action will have to gain traction with ALL 27 members and since some members have a pacifist attitude such as Germany, I see total agreement as being
near impossible. The EU Army will lack leadership and political will to use it, it will twiddle its fingers in the barracks and become a toothless organisation with less manpower than NATO while competing with NATO for manpower.
Without American nukes, the Turkish army and the common cause of NATO which transcends political problems it is on the road to a hiding.

France, for example, can and does protect its interests on the other side of the world. Germany does, as well, but only half heartedly, because when the Germans go full military, such as the bombing of those petrol tankers in Afghanistan all those years ago, they usually totally overdo it. Fuck, even full on peaceful places like Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway were happily shooting brown people in Afghanistan. The EU is a clusterfuck, I don't think anyone can deny that, but it's the best clusterfuck the world currently has in terms of protecting the rights and living standards of its people. Nowhere else on this planet has there ever been a free federation of as many nations and cultures as there are in the EU. It's messy and full of infighting and squabbling, but, for the most part, it actually works very well. You don't need passports to travel from Poland to Portugal. There are no import taxes on goods from any EU country to any other EU country. The mess and confusion of laws at the very least means that many laws are unified across the whole territory. You can work in Poznan or Sevilles or Duisburg. The same with studying.

Will it crash and burn? No, obviously not, as much as you may want it too. Neither will the UK, as much as I want it too. Sucks, doesn't it.

Two fun facts:
A) my hometown
B) those cooling towers are a fair bit away from the city. But why use something pretty when you can use something industrial.

Apart from that, it's right. There are issues with refugees, but as the article mentions, it's also one of the centers of (East) German right wing groups. Those 145 extremists are not just right wing but violent Neo-Nazis with a violent past. Sympathizers probably account for 30% or more of the population.
Most of the refugees that we got there are actually not Syrian but actually Chechen and caused way more trouble, it just didn't really make the news outside of the town.
The backlash by the population is no surprise either, it was a hot bed for right wing extremism since the early 1990s.

In the last Bundestag election the AfD got 27% and was the strongest party, 73.9% voter participation. The voting district has 217k residents, of which 3.8% are foreigners (German average is 10.5%), unemployment rate is 8.8% (German average is 6%), 10.9% live off Hartz IV (welfare, German average is 7.4%), GDP per capita is €33k (German average is €36k), 35.5% have a degree in higher education (German average is 34.5%). Source.

The article also mentions attacks by right wing members on refugees, which comes at no surprise considering how strong right wing groups always have been in the city.

Anecdotal reference: my family moved from our apartment in a glorious commie block when the "Sieg Heil!" and "Heil Hitler!" chants in the streets became a weekly occurrence.

Also, have a nice picture or two from my hometown:

Spoiler:

We have the only pyramid in Europe that is actually a burial site:

Interred is the flamboyant Fürst Pückler. His castle in his incredible park:

Not all of the old buildings were destroyed in the war or the GDR:

I did take a picture ages ago of that coal powerplant though:

I am annoyed that it is not level. Very annoyed.

There is also an airport museum I may have shared a photo of before:

TL/DR: dump lots of refugees, most single men into a city openly hostile towards non-Western foreigners and then act surprised.

Edit:
This morning went like this:
My hometown is in the news!

...

/me reads the news.

...

Oh come on!

(during the 2006 World Cup my hometown was declared a no-go-zone for foreigners by some media outlets)

Two fun facts:
A) my hometown
B) those cooling towers are a fair bit away from the city. But why use something pretty when you can use something industrial.

Apart from that, it's right. There are issues with refugees, but as the article mentions, it's also one of the centers of (East) German right wing groups. Those 145 extremists are not just right wing but violent Neo-Nazis with a violent past. Sympathizers probably account for 30% or more of the population.
Most of the refugees that we got there are actually not Syrian but actually Chechen and caused way more trouble, it just didn't really make the news outside of the town.
The backlash by the population is no surprise either, it was a hot bed for right wing extremism since the early 1990s.

In the last Bundestag election the AfD got 27% and was the strongest party, 73.9% voter participation. The voting district has 217k residents, of which 3.8% are foreigners (German average is 10.5%), unemployment rate is 8.8% (German average is 6%), 10.9% live off Hartz IV (welfare, German average is 7.4%), GDP per capita is €33k (German average is €36k), 35.5% have a degree in higher education (German average is 34.5%). Source.

The article also mentions attacks by right wing members on refugees, which comes at no surprise considering how strong right wing groups always have been in the city.

Anecdotal reference: my family moved from our apartment in a glorious commie block when the "Sieg Heil!" and "Heil Hitler!" chants in the streets became a weekly occurrence.

Also, have a nice picture or two from my hometown:

Spoiler:

We have the only pyramid in Europe that is actually a burial site:

Interred is the flamboyant Fürst Pückler. His castle in his incredible park:

Not all of the old buildings were destroyed in the war or the GDR:

I did take a picture ages ago of that coal powerplant though:

I am annoyed that it is not level. Very annoyed.

There is also an airport museum I may have shared a photo of before:

TL/DR: dump lots of refugees, most single men into a city openly hostile towards non-Western foreigners and then act surprised.

Edit:
This morning went like this:
My hometown is in the news!

...

/me reads the news.

...

Oh come on!

(during the 2006 World Cup my hometown was declared a no-go-zone for foreigners by some media outlets)

Spoiler:

"I think we could all do with sitting back a bit and detaching ourselves from the situation to really think about how these issues reflect on our future and how we discuss them here and be a bit less aggressive or defensive because everyone has a complicated set of circumstances that has led the to place importance on particular issues and it doesn't meany any of them is less valid, we just need to look at the broader picture"

Now this is already true to an extent for NATO, but smaller countries will undoubtedly have smaller manpower and will have to take a lesser role in military matters compared to France or the UK.
This is ignoring the idea of federalisation of the EU which will never happen anyway but I digress. Smaller nations like Portugal and Slovenia are far less likely to have influence in an EU Army, they
will lack experience and the necessary equipment and unlike NATO more political concerns will interfere in the process like the relationship between the Greek economy and the EU at large.

The difference between the EU Army and NATO is that the manpower for NATO can overcome the shortcoming of manpower that the EU Army will face. Political tensions between member states of the EU are less existent
in NATO mainly because the Americans run the show and have no tensions with Greece regarding their economy for instance. Smaller nations are less willing to give acquiescence to certain military matters if they are treated less fairly.
Some nations will effectively be responsible for other nations security and an EU Army is unlikely to have the will to go off to another part of the world to defend interests there. Can it even protect the territories of EU countries which
are not a part of the EU Zone?

In regards to the get anywhere part of the argument, it is likely that any military action will have to gain traction with ALL 27 members and since some members have a pacifist attitude such as Germany, I see total agreement as being
near impossible. The EU Army will lack leadership and political will to use it, it will twiddle its fingers in the barracks and become a toothless organisation with less manpower than NATO while competing with NATO for manpower.
Without American nukes, the Turkish army and the common cause of NATO which transcends political problems it is on the road to a hiding.

Good post Meester , having been in the Portuguese armed forces and being now in one of its branches, I too don't see has likely the EU army getting more power .

I hope they would to get free of American interests but I don't see it , to many chiefs too few Indians .And I really don't see how in the fuck it would work in command , managing the diferent specialised platoons diferent languages and diferent modus operandi.

Just to give an example , I will speak of Portugal cause that is the reality I know off , we created in the sixties a special force that is made to counter terrorist /rebel activities in Africa colonies, shock troops that were and still are trained in guerrilla tactics and counter measures.

This is just one of our special force ,how would this regiment operate in the EU army ?Because I know for certain that more country's have this type of unit and they train with and to work in conjuction with our armed forces.

Maybe try to start using the same ammo and try to use the same type of weapons first.

Now this is already true to an extent for NATO, but smaller countries will undoubtedly have smaller manpower and will have to take a lesser role in military matters compared to France or the UK.
This is ignoring the idea of federalisation of the EU which will never happen anyway but I digress. Smaller nations like Portugal and Slovenia are far less likely to have influence in an EU Army, they
will lack experience and the necessary equipment and unlike NATO more political concerns will interfere in the process like the relationship between the Greek economy and the EU at large.

The difference between the EU Army and NATO is that the manpower for NATO can overcome the shortcoming of manpower that the EU Army will face. Political tensions between member states of the EU are less existent
in NATO mainly because the Americans run the show and have no tensions with Greece regarding their economy for instance. Smaller nations are less willing to give acquiescence to certain military matters if they are treated less fairly.
Some nations will effectively be responsible for other nations security and an EU Army is unlikely to have the will to go off to another part of the world to defend interests there. Can it even protect the territories of EU countries which
are not a part of the EU Zone?

In regards to the get anywhere part of the argument, it is likely that any military action will have to gain traction with ALL 27 members and since some members have a pacifist attitude such as Germany, I see total agreement as being
near impossible. The EU Army will lack leadership and political will to use it, it will twiddle its fingers in the barracks and become a toothless organisation with less manpower than NATO while competing with NATO for manpower.
Without American nukes, the Turkish army and the common cause of NATO which transcends political problems it is on the road to a hiding.

Good post Meester , having been in the Portuguese armed forces and being now in one of its branches, I too don't see has likely the EU army getting more power .

I hope they would to get free of American interests but I don't see it , to many chiefs too few Indians .And I really don't see how in the fuck it would work in command , managing the diferent specialised platoons diferent languages and diferent modus operandi.

Just to give an example , I will speak of Portugal cause that is the reality I know off , we created in the sixties a special force that is made to counter terrorist /rebel activities in Africa colonies, shock troops that were and still are trained in guerrilla tactics and counter measures.

This is just one of our special force ,how would this regiment operate in the EU army ?Because I know for certain that more country's have this type of unit and they train with and to work in conjuction with our armed forces.

Maybe try to start using the same ammo and try to use the same type of weapons first.

Enviado do meu SM-G900F através do Tapatalk

It should be done the same way any smaller disparate entities with different cultures learn to work together.

Persistence, hard work, training and compromise.

Hopefully they will take this nice and slow and do it proper....hahaha who am I kidding.

Now this is already true to an extent for NATO, but smaller countries will undoubtedly have smaller manpower and will have to take a lesser role in military matters compared to France or the UK.
This is ignoring the idea of federalisation of the EU which will never happen anyway but I digress. Smaller nations like Portugal and Slovenia are far less likely to have influence in an EU Army, they
will lack experience and the necessary equipment and unlike NATO more political concerns will interfere in the process like the relationship between the Greek economy and the EU at large.

The difference between the EU Army and NATO is that the manpower for NATO can overcome the shortcoming of manpower that the EU Army will face. Political tensions between member states of the EU are less existent
in NATO mainly because the Americans run the show and have no tensions with Greece regarding their economy for instance. Smaller nations are less willing to give acquiescence to certain military matters if they are treated less fairly.
Some nations will effectively be responsible for other nations security and an EU Army is unlikely to have the will to go off to another part of the world to defend interests there. Can it even protect the territories of EU countries which
are not a part of the EU Zone?

In regards to the get anywhere part of the argument, it is likely that any military action will have to gain traction with ALL 27 members and since some members have a pacifist attitude such as Germany, I see total agreement as being
near impossible. The EU Army will lack leadership and political will to use it, it will twiddle its fingers in the barracks and become a toothless organisation with less manpower than NATO while competing with NATO for manpower.
Without American nukes, the Turkish army and the common cause of NATO which transcends political problems it is on the road to a hiding.

Good post Meester , having been in the Portuguese armed forces and being now in one of its branches, I too don't see has likely the EU army getting more power .

I hope they would to get free of American interests but I don't see it , to many chiefs too few Indians .And I really don't see how in the fuck it would work in command , managing the diferent specialised platoons diferent languages and diferent modus operandi.

Just to give an example , I will speak of Portugal cause that is the reality I know off , we created in the sixties a special force that is made to counter terrorist /rebel activities in Africa colonies, shock troops that were and still are trained in guerrilla tactics and counter measures.

This is just one of our special force ,how would this regiment operate in the EU army ?Because I know for certain that more country's have this type of unit and they train with and to work in conjuction with our armed forces.

Maybe try to start using the same ammo and try to use the same type of weapons first.

Enviado do meu SM-G900F através do Tapatalk

It should be done the same way any smaller disparate entities with different cultures learn to work together.

Persistence, hard work, training and compromise.

Hopefully they will take this nice and slow and do it proper....hahaha who am I kidding.

very...deep....

Spoiler:

:integration:

"I think we could all do with sitting back a bit and detaching ourselves from the situation to really think about how these issues reflect on our future and how we discuss them here and be a bit less aggressive or defensive because everyone has a complicated set of circumstances that has led the to place importance on particular issues and it doesn't meany any of them is less valid, we just need to look at the broader picture"

Now this is already true to an extent for NATO, but smaller countries will undoubtedly have smaller manpower and will have to take a lesser role in military matters compared to France or the UK.
This is ignoring the idea of federalisation of the EU which will never happen anyway but I digress. Smaller nations like Portugal and Slovenia are far less likely to have influence in an EU Army, they
will lack experience and the necessary equipment and unlike NATO more political concerns will interfere in the process like the relationship between the Greek economy and the EU at large.

The difference between the EU Army and NATO is that the manpower for NATO can overcome the shortcoming of manpower that the EU Army will face. Political tensions between member states of the EU are less existent
in NATO mainly because the Americans run the show and have no tensions with Greece regarding their economy for instance. Smaller nations are less willing to give acquiescence to certain military matters if they are treated less fairly.
Some nations will effectively be responsible for other nations security and an EU Army is unlikely to have the will to go off to another part of the world to defend interests there. Can it even protect the territories of EU countries which
are not a part of the EU Zone?

In regards to the get anywhere part of the argument, it is likely that any military action will have to gain traction with ALL 27 members and since some members have a pacifist attitude such as Germany, I see total agreement as being
near impossible. The EU Army will lack leadership and political will to use it, it will twiddle its fingers in the barracks and become a toothless organisation with less manpower than NATO while competing with NATO for manpower.
Without American nukes, the Turkish army and the common cause of NATO which transcends political problems it is on the road to a hiding.

Good post Meester , having been in the Portuguese armed forces and being now in one of its branches, I too don't see has likely the EU army getting more power .

I hope they would to get free of American interests but I don't see it , to many chiefs too few Indians .And I really don't see how in the fuck it would work in command , managing the diferent specialised platoons diferent languages and diferent modus operandi.

Just to give an example , I will speak of Portugal cause that is the reality I know off , we created in the sixties a special force that is made to counter terrorist /rebel activities in Africa colonies, shock troops that were and still are trained in guerrilla tactics and counter measures.

This is just one of our special force ,how would this regiment operate in the EU army ?Because I know for certain that more country's have this type of unit and they train with and to work in conjuction with our armed forces.

Maybe try to start using the same ammo and try to use the same type of weapons first.

Enviado do meu SM-G900F através do Tapatalk

It should be done the same way any smaller disparate entities with different cultures learn to work together.

Persistence, hard work, training and compromise.

Hopefully they will take this nice and slow and do it proper....hahaha who am I kidding.

very...deep....

Spoiler:

:integration:

Part of my job for the last five years has been integrating professional organisations from 40+ different countries into a single, cohesive global team.

It's a lot easier with dedicated professionals whose jobs are on the line, but you need to go sloooooooooooow.

"I think we could all do with sitting back a bit and detaching ourselves from the situation to really think about how these issues reflect on our future and how we discuss them here and be a bit less aggressive or defensive because everyone has a complicated set of circumstances that has led the to place importance on particular issues and it doesn't meany any of them is less valid, we just need to look at the broader picture"

The borrowing itself is such a small part of the overall picture it is basically pointless to discuss in isolation.

Originally Posted by Paul Mason

It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

How will you ever convince people to join on poor terms? It isn't 1973 anymore.

Remind me again how the UK terms of joining were poor? You know, with actual facts not tabloid drivel.

It could be argued that the French veto on the UK joining the EEC back in the sixties resulted in the development of a Common Agriculture Policy that was very favorable to France and unfavorable to the UK. The CAP accounted for more than 70% of EU spending in the eighties so if you were fucked by the CAP you had a bad deal.

As I recall back in the eighties Thatcher claimed that the (at the time) poorer UK was a bigger net contributor to the EU than the richer France was. Instead of re-negotiating the payments and expenditures they bodged it by creating the UK rebate.

The achingly slow reform of CAP, coupled with the formation of surpluses like the 'EU butter mountain', probably contributed towards a rising perception of lack of EU competence in the UK among the people that voted us in in the seventies.

Bingo! You Brits are gonna miss the eu its rebate and its subsidies. Hollandia is allready gearing up its lost revenue in export just like it did when we had the rusiia ban.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn LENNY2 met Tapatalk

Schopenhauer:

All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident..